Patterico's Pontifications

11/26/2009

Another Kind of Climate Change Denial (Updated x2)

Filed under: Environment — DRJ @ 4:57 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

In the wake of the East Anglia email scandal, investigative journalist and climate change activist George Monbiot notes the irony of his fellow environmentalists’ denials of the East Anglia email scandal:

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people’s denial. Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We’ll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.
***
There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific.”

Monbiot is not doing an about-face on global warming — in fact, he’s so concerned about it that he’s one of the few green activists willing to accept nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions.

— DRJ

UPDATE: The White House has some explaining to do, too:

“Canada Free Press editor Judi McLeod and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball reveal the involvement of White House Science Czar John Holdren (photo) in the Climategate Scandal. The picture presented of Holdren is not a pretty one:

Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

Examples are provided at the link, and it concludes with this summary of John Holdren: “Holdren was blinded by his political views, which as his record shows are frightening. One web site synthesizes his position on over-population as follows, “Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.”

Presumably, as Science Czar, John Holdren has direct access to President Obama when it comes to global warming and science issues.

UPDATE 2 — The Obama Administration isn’t taking Monbiot’s advice:

“Skeptics of global warming science, meanwhile, criticized Obama for pushing a climate deal amid a scandal in Britain, where computer hackers obtained and posted online e-mails and other documents from leading climate scientists.

The skeptics say documents show that scientists have overstated the case for global warming. Obama administration officials said that they had seen the stolen e-mails and dismissed the arguments.”

H/T Kevin Murphy.

62 Responses to “Another Kind of Climate Change Denial (Updated x2)”

  1. While I’m sure it was a typo, somehow “In the wage of the East Anglia email scandal” seems right; the wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)

    The nitpicky Dana (474dfc)

  2. Thanks, Dana. It may well be Freudian but I’ll fix it anyway … and I’ve updated the post.

    DRJ (dee47d)

  3. Fox News should be interviewing scientists that have been smeared and blackballed by these High Priests of the Church of Globaloney.

    Start with Dr. Salli Baliunas, Harvard PhD, who found that the Medieval Warming was real. Obama’s science czar has been trying to discredit her for questioning one of the sacred precepts of the Church. The data that shows the Medieval Warming must be removed in order to preserve the Holy Hockey Stick, you see.

    sherlock (e1e91e)

  4. Meanwhile, in a galaxy far away, Australia, members of Parliament are resigning in protest of their version of the cap and trade bill in light of these recent revelations. Would that our politicians were so principled.

    Gazzer (f4dafa)

  5. But they had good intentions, which is the most important aspect of this. And it is real, you anti-science new earth creationist godfreaks. Don’t you know that good intentions get you a Nobel, and absolute moral authority?

    JD (b3c680)

  6. Hey, just maybe some folks in the “main stream” news media are catching on. In today’s LA Times, in this article,
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-obama-climate26-2009nov26,0,6587075.story
    there is no mention of any purported “consensus.” From the article,

    But it is still well below what many scientists, along with political leaders in Europe and developing countries, say is needed from the United States to avert the most catastrophic effects of climate change worldwide.

    Even those reductions fall short of the 25% to 40% reductions over that period that many scientists and environmental groups say are needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

    Skeptics of global warming science, meanwhile, criticized Obama for pushing a climate deal amid a scandal in Britain, where computer hackers obtained and posted online e-mails and other documents from leading climate scientists.

    The skeptics say documents show that scientists have overstated the case for global warming. Obama administration officials said that they had seen the stolen e-mails and dismissed the arguments.

    Ira (28a423)

  7. One web site synthesizes his position on over-population as follows, “Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.”

    Well, with the welfare of 6 billion people the whole human race at hand, what matter are the lives of little people, anyway?

    As far as the Obamites are concerned, this goes had in hand with “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  8. Obama administration officials said that they had seen the stolen e-mails and dismissed the arguments.

    That should settle it! Obama has pronounced it heresy, and heresy it must be!

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  9. I’m going with “Climaquiddick,” it’s a better suffix.

    “gate” indicates an issue the media is obsessed with, they were all over Watergate, couldn’t get enough of it.

    While “quiddick” is indicative of a story they run away from, duck, dodge, and pretend doesn’t exist.

    ropelight (63c5b4)

  10. I’m with ropelight; pigs will fly before the mainstream media gives this scandal the airing it so richly deserves.

    Old Coot (166f79)

  11. Years ago there was a “Family Circus” cartoon with one of the characters (Jeffy?) walking outside with his eyes closed and without clothes on. An older sib was saying, “He thinks if he keeps his eyes closed, no one can see him.”

    That is about the level of rationality of some of these folks. They are so committed to what they think is true, they can’t see a problem if it bit them on the nose, except for the occasional one with intellectual integrity like Monbiot, who now has just started to see that his whole paradigm of existence is about to collapse.

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  12. Obama administration officials said that they had seen the stolen e-mails and dismissed the arguments More proof, as if you needed it, that AGW has absolutely nothing to do with “saving” the planet and is nothing but a power grab. Any rational person would state that the emails warrant further investigation, at the very least. Barry and his merry band of geniuses have mulled it over and “dismissed the argument.”

    Gazzer (f4dafa)

  13. MD makes a valid point. If for the last 15-20 years you have billed yourself as an “environmental reporter” or some such moniker, your world just came crashing down.

    Gazzer (f4dafa)

  14. All one has to do is go over to that propaganda site RealClimate to see just how over their heads the warmists are. Incredibly weak denials (mostly, simple assertions that they are right and anyone disagreeing is wrong, because they say so, along with hilarious attempts at posting up various equations and other obvious bullshit intended to look authoritative and scientific, hilarious considering their inability to recreate their data models and refusal to release their raw data or code) accompanied by admirably groupthink-y groupthink responses in the vast majority of the comments, and the sense of self-superiority is so heavy it’s almost oozing down the walls. These people need to go down.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  15. #10, Coot, “quiddick” and “Global Whoring” both come from McQ at QandO. Both are destined to control the world.

    ropelight (63c5b4)

  16. I’ve updated the post to add the Obama Administration’s response per Kevin Murphy’s comment, above.

    DRJ (dee47d)

  17. Given that Obama’s own faux science advisor, John Holden, is implicated in the CRU emails, the dismissal of the scandal by these anonymous White House officials – likely Holden himself – is no surprise.

    SPQR (ecf889)

  18. Many in the AGW camp are ignoring a fundamental concept: scientific evidence–e.g., raw data, codes for analysis, etc., MUST be made freely available TO ALL for examination and testing. “Proprietary” has no room in matters of this type that are so wide reaching. If the hypothesis is found to be unsupportable, by ANYONE who attempts to analyze through rigorous techniques, then discuss and work out the differences. Stonewalling implies that something is being withheld or is incorrect. ANY refusal of FOI requests, or attempted discrediting of journals–which do not agree with some preconceived notion–means something is grossly wrong and contrary to the scientific method. At this point the only question is authenticity of the emails in “Climategate”. I’m hard-pressed to think they are fabricated.

    dhmosquito (3e3c95)

  19. dhmosquito, you are not correct. The AGW crowd has not been ignoring that concept at all. They’ve been actively and intentionally violating it. They’ve been refusing to supply data and methodology. Even in contradiction to the explicit required archiving policies of various granting agencies and publishing journals.

    This behavior of the AGW camp is not negligence, it is not laziness and it is not eccentricity. It is deliberate obstructionism.

    SPQR (ecf889)

  20. Honest question. Has Fat Al Bore said anything about this publicly? Seems to me he has been awful quiet this week.

    Gazzer (f4dafa)

  21. Many foreign leaders, particularly those in European nations that have been more aggressive in dealing with climate change, have become critical of Mr. Obama’s seeming passivity on the issue. The White House appears to hope that the announcement of the targets and the trip to Copenhagen will quiet some of the dissension and help Mr. Obama re-establish American leadership on what he calls one of the signature issues of the time.

    From this NYT article, one might assume that the president cares more about what Europeans think of him than what we at home do. At least enough to take a trip to smooth over their irritation at him. However, our irritation over his passivity on signature issues doesn’t seem to concern him too much.

    Judging by their lack of reporting, the NYT hasn’t had time to read the leaked emails.

    Dana (e9ba20)

  22. “Obama administration officials said that they had seen the stolen e-mails and dismissed the arguments.”

    They “dismissed the arguments.” Now how about them apples?

    That’s like pretending you’re not at home when the bill collector comes knocking on your door, you might get away with it for a time or two, but like the Terminator, he’ll be back.

    ropelight (63c5b4)

  23. I’m guessing that this event constitutes the largest, most vigorous “peer review” thus far in the history of science. Never before has a release of data and methods been subjected to the sudden intense study of so many eager scholars. I’m very impressed by the rapid explorations of the CRU computer programs by many talented programmers. I say it’s good for science, and a crowdsourcing milestone.

    gp (d1217f)

  24. Yeah, thanks for the dose of reality, SPQR. I guess I’m rather naïve. When I worked in DoD we established “War Rooms” to determine “The Way Ahead” in weapons systems development. The idea was to set up a forum wherein a “polished” concept was developed. Protagonists/antagonists (recognized experts) from across the country were invited in to interactively discuss/analyze/critique what was presented in various “War Rooms” that were established to determine “ground truth” in various areas. When something was identified as being incorrect, or needing modification–through accepted analysis techniques–newly-recognized (and vetted) data was incorporated and the message of the War Room was modified to be congruent with what new data had been discovered. (Sorta like the Scientific Method, huh?) Antagonists were treated respectfully and given equal time (unlike the way antagonists are treated in the current AGW argument), but if they could not present a viable counterpoint, they were dismissed as charlatans, and the message was unchanged. Through many presentations, we were able to develop a tight story that could not be faulted, unless politics intervened. Although we were able to establish and demonstrate the viability of a particular missile defense system, it was cancelled in 2001. The higher-ups didn’t like it, undoubtedly due to pressure from another branch of service. The more things change, the more they remain the same. And yup, we encountered deliberate obstructionism after making our case.

    dhmosquito (3e3c95)

  25. It isn’t “climategate”. “-gate” suggests a story the media will dig into, ferreting out every nugget of truth…

    I agree with Bruce McQuain. “-quiddick” is more appropriate, as it suggests a story the media wants to bury the hell out of.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  26. It’s all a lie.

    happyfeet (0003d3)

  27. A valid peer review requires the honest collection of data, access to the same raw data, as much time and funding as is necessary to full examine the tests undertaken to prove the theory and an open mind as to whether the theory is valid. So has there been a valid peer review of the theory of AGW?.

    Terry Gain (1664b9)

  28. The White House will push the climate fiasco for the same reason they are pushing healthcare. They have to get this done before the public finds out it is a scam.

    Yes, we had a lovely dinner.

    Mike K (addb13)

  29. No, no…the Obama White House, in its arrogance, has given us the perfect rejoinder for any of the administrations claims:

    White House: We must enact a treaty to save the planet from global warming!

    Response: We’ve examined your alleged evidence and have dismissed your arguments.

    White House: The stimulus has saved or created 650-thousand jobs.

    Response: We’ve reviewed your job claims and have dismissed the evidence.

    It’s the perfect government response: “We hold your position (and possibly you) in contempt. You are dismissed.” No debating the facts, just consignment to oblivion.

    It works both ways.

    navyvet (ef35a9)

  30. So has there been a valid peer review of the theory of AGW?. Comment by Terry Gain

    According to some of the things I have read, that is one thing addressed by the released emails, reportedly showing the effective efforts of AGW proponents in “blocking out” papers in peer-reviewed journals by skeptics. Of course, efforts to block release of raw data also diminishes the ability of others to do the kind of analysis that would be accepted in a peer-reviewed journal.

    A name that seems important is Steve McIntyre. Numerous references to his being a royal pain in the butt are found in the rleased emails, but according to this article from MIT folk:
    http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

    the main reason they have to be peeved is that he is onto them.

    Here is his website, FYI:
    http://camirror.wordpress.com/

    Two other apparently noteworthy AGW-skeptic sites are:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/
    and
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/

    I am not endorsing these by any means, except to say they seem among the prime places to go. I would love to hear what others think.

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  31. Here’s a prominent proponent, for equal time:

    http://www.realclimate.org/

    I think somewhere there is (or should be) a PhD student in History of Science that is writing the definitive book on this.

    I know in my own field of Medicine, a fellow named Duesberg with credentials of being a professor at Berkley in Molecular Biology has been stirring up nonsense about HIV not causing AIDS since the mid to late 80’s. To anyone who does not have at least some college biochem and cell biology, off-hand he sounds very convincing. To someone with sufficient background, his arguments are filled with half-truths and inadequate analogies. That being said, it isn’t that hard for the one “in the know” to adequately explain and reconcile the competing view points. I haven’t seen such plain-speaking in the AGW proponent camp to give me confidence.

    My rough understanding for others to comment on is the following:
    1. people in the late 80’s and early 90’s saw world temperature data showing an incline in temperature. Looking at it over the 20th century the world “warmed up”, and hence the alarm started. The fact that the data over the 1900’s had been up and down, and that as recent as the mid 70’s people thought the same data set was predicting a new ice age, was overlooked.
    2. Some degree of correlation seemed to fit between CO2 and temperature both in the 1900’s and reportedly during periods of geological history, some measurements in terms of several hundred years, and others millions of years back.
    3. There has been argument over the validity of data, validity of models, inaccuracy of popular presentataions (Gore’s heat/CO2 concentration being backwards)
    4. Currently there is so much in models and advanced computations that it is hard to get a grasp on, unless you are a mathematician with a statistical analysis background. But is it all a lot of smoke trying to prop up an original observation about temperatures in the 1900’s that was over-reaching in it’s conclusions and shown to be unreliable over the last 10 years?

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  32. chaos is right about the folks at Realclimte.

    They are part of the AGW circle in the e-mails and their responses (at least Gavin Schmidt’s) are on the level of it’s no big deal. No e-mails were deleted, all information requested has be turned over, blah blah blah.

    If Obama or anyone in Congress thinks this is some two-bit computer hacking they are in for a rough ride.

    MU789 (4e85ea)

  33. I like it, navyvet, although I have a feeling Obama would just respond “I won.”

    DRJ (dee47d)

  34. Heh, looking at Rasmussen… Their over/under on Obama is -15 for the 2nd straight day. And their favorable/unfavorable is -8. Teh Won isn’t doing to well with likely voters. What was GWB’s polling data at this time of the game?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  35. Dog stole my “o” key, so I drop them sometimes. “Teh Won isn’t doing TOO well”. I have a strong understanding of homophones. 😉

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  36. “Hide the Decline” – because controlling the masses is more important than the truth.

    Perfectsense (0922fa)

  37. Comment by John Hitchcock — 11/26/2009 @ 11:10 pm

    I don’t think it’s fair to compare BHO’s numbers with GWB’s numbers in the first year of their terms. At this point in GWB’s term we’d just been hit and were beginning to root out the Taliban & AQ in Afghanistan. I just don’t think there is any way to compare, fairly, the impact of 9/11 to health care debate and Climaquiddick on the psyche of Americans.

    Just saying, BHO sucks tube socks all by his-lonesome.

    Vivian Louise (643333)

  38. The mainstream media is deeply, deeply corrupt.

    Increase Mather (4deffc)

  39. I hope that they have the names of the White House “officials”.

    The problem here is that even smart people will buy something when they are told, “But you can’t see the numbers.” Does Bernie Maddof ring a bell?

    The Obama White House has been filled with politicos who never have to be right about anything. Look at what to the money Obama gave out when he chaired the Chicago Annenburg Challenge. Look at what happened to money Obama gave out to improve the parks in Obama own Illinois (sp. probably) district.

    They are wrong, and History is going to prove them wrong. What is Obama going to say when 5 years from now, the world is colder?

    When the the AGW house of cards falls none of the AGW supporters will end up in prison, but all of them will end up in the court of public opinion. The verdict won’t be pretty.

    jack (e383ed)

  40. I believe that Bart Simpson is the official spokesperson over at RealClimate:

    “I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove I did it, and I promise I’ll never do it again!”

    Gary Coleman (2b1098)

  41. I wonder how the envirowackos would react if the whole Obama Administration, Liberal Democrats, reporters, and environmentalists were forced sterilized, and killed at age 60?

    PCD (74f8a9)

  42. Am I the only person in my generation to remember how we have been fed this crap all our life?

    First we were all going to die because of global cooling.

    Then it was acid rain; according to the scary predictions my umbrella would be melting by now.

    Then it was holes in the ozone layer; I am extremely fair skinned and prone to burning, so supposedly I would be as deep fried as one of those turkeys by now.

    Then it was global warming.

    Now it is climate change, because, you know, but for humanity the earth’s climate would remain a constant. *rolls eyes*

    So I have gotten into a habit of thinking, “oh, great so what is going to kill us this week?”

    Then we hear things like, oh, um, it turns out our climate models predicted certain things would happen and they didn’t. you don’t say. well, in science that means that your models are wrong, and all the assumptions underneath them are called into question. But in global warming land, its “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” Or the more recent iteration “hide the decline.”

    That being said, if we credit the emails, it also reveals that these guys really do believe it down at its core. The problem is that they care nothing about the proper scientific process. So they hide the decline, and outright fake data, and kneecap skeptics, because they don’t want anyone to question them. But then what is their certainty coming from?—other research that itself might have been doctored “with the best of intentions?” hard to say.

    But what is clear is that if they are not willing to have an open debate, then we should shut them out of the debate. That should be the price of the ticket to get into the climate debate. You have to share all of your raw data, all of your methods, put your studies on an examination table and allow your critics to vivisect it, and yes, even risk making you look like a fool. Yeah, it might not be fun, but it’s the scientific method, you idiots.

    Of course there are those who say, “fine that is one corrupt organization. Big deal.” Well, there are three things that undermine that defense. First, this is an organization that is in reality a keystone in the warmist movement.

    Second, it is devastating to the warmist movement because their outward actions utterly mimic the behavior of the vaunted “consensus.” So for instance, we point out that the climate models are wrong, and in public all the warmists say “no biggie” while in private they admit that it is a “travesty” that they can’t explain this.

    Third, there is the casualness, the sheer banality of it all. These guys talk about suppressing dissent, faking data, and other scientific felonies with all the weight that you and I would devote to talking about getting a morning cup of coffee. Like its nothing. The picture you get from these emails is that the vast majority of them don’t find it even unusual. There are no shocked newbies going, “wait, this is awful what you are saying.” This is powerful evidence that this is normal in the culture of these scientists and not isolated at one particular institution.

    I will also note how similar this is sounding to the problem with journalists. Journalists are supposed to be impartial arbiters of truth. But they have recently been shown to be anything but, and of course the reaction has been similar. The CRU emails talking about discrediting a journal echoes closely the endless attacks on fox news. The constant hiding, skewing, etc. is all designed, I am sure, to keep the public believing the big truth and never asking uncomfortable questions. But it raises the question, if they have to lie all the time to keep us believing in their truth, then how do they know it is the truth?

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  43. Btw, regarding the simpsons reference, the metaphor i think of the most when reading the emails is weird al yankovich, at the beginning of his video for “Like a Surgeon.” He is a doctor and he sees a patient go into flatline. and he then hits the machine, thinking the machine is broken. He does this several times and then he turns and hits the man in the chest and suddenly the machine returns to normal.

    That’s the warmists’ reaction to the inconvenient truths presented by the real data.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  44. per #39: “What is Obama going to say when 5 years from now, the world is colder?”

    Surely you’re kidding. He’s going to take credit for it [whether he’s still in office or not] and tell us peasants that the only reason it’s so is because of the decisive actions taken by his administration. You know – the ‘tax ‘n crap’ ones that make it too expensive to heat your hovel?

    kaz (e7a67c)

  45. I’ve been following the global warming debate since the early ’80s or so, and keep getting reminded of a powerful “scientific consensus” example.

    In the first half of the 20th century (as I remember), it was “known” that the human cell had 48 chromosomes, “and here are the photos to prove it”. Finally, (circa 1950), someone did the work again and somehow got published: “there are 46 chromosomes in the human cell, and here’s the photo”. The kicker: in going over the “48 chromosome photos”, there were really 46. Lots of folks went back over their photographs and got some egg on the face.

    So who you gonna believe: your lying eyes or the Distinguished Scientist ™? Of course, it’s a lot easier when the data is hidden and the 48-deniers are denied a voice in the literature.

    Red County Pete (215d27)

  46. 42.Am I the only person in my generation to remember how we have been fed this crap all our life? AW

    No, you’re not. But we must agree that AGW has had the staying power that other things haven’t.

    I agree that it appears they really believe what they claim, and they apparently justify their manipulation of data because they think it is so important for everyone to get on board and do something.

    But then what is their certainty coming from?—other research that itself might have been doctored “with the best of intentions?” hard to say.

    That’s what I was pondering up in #31, what was the genesis of the concept? What was the data that suggested the idea in the first place, and has that data held up, or has it all been one faulty conclusion after another, with fudged handwaving trying to prove something all along? Is there any “central claim” that disproving will help people see it for what it is, or have they been so busy at constructing a many-headed creature of half-truth that no matter what you show to be false, they just morph into a different issue- just like politicians and journalists.

    Having “believed the lie” (the hubris that man is so powerful and important in the scheme of things that we can control the world’s climate and ocean level), “they became fools”.

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  47. Monbiot lost me as soon as he mentioned the “Climate Denial Industry”.

    That must be like the “Vast Right-wing Conspiracy” – you know, that irritating 10% of the media that still dares to stray from DNC talking points in its news reporting.

    sherlock (e1e91e)

  48. I am very disappointed in all of you. You KNOW that those who warn you about climate change care. Yet you persist in your selfish pursuit of this “truth” that you rave about. You all are starting to sound like that absolute nut-case Galileo – ha! The experts showed him! Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE knew that the sun revolved around the Earth – as God intended.

    So stop this nonsense! Now I have to put my miter back on and get to my climate change meeting.

    californio (ff4236)

  49. Apolitical isn’t what it used to be, according to climate scientist/data hider Phil Jones.

    “I’m a very apolitical person, I don’t want to get involved in the politics, I’m much happier doing the science and producing the papers. I’m a scientist, I let my science do the talking, along with all my scientific climate colleagues. It’s up to governments to decide and climate science is just one thing they have to take into account with the decisions they have to make.”

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  50. “Obama administration officials said that they had seen the stolen e-mails and dismissed the arguments.”

    They don’t care if AGW is true or not. They want totalitartian government, no matter what the situation is.

    Dave Surls (9b369c)

  51. The East Anglia people were smart enough to destroy the raw data, a mortal sin in any science venture, but that will protect them from serious retribution, like in the Old Bailey. In New Zealand, they were not that clever and the raw data will convict them. It’s amusing to see Monbiot rant about the “fossil fuel industry.” That may be the motive right there. I wonder what he heats his home with ?

    Mike K (addb13)

  52. One question to ponder, is what type of “crisis” would have to occur to force BHO to cancel the trip to Copenhagen? And, would he also cancel his side-trip to Oslo?
    Climaquiddick is on an accellerating slope in public awareness; and, if he’s not careful, he’s going to be caught on the wrong side of the “chrome horn”.

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  53. “…I wonder what he heats his home with ?”
    Comment by Mike K — 11/27/2009 @ 9:22 am

    100%, natural peat-moss!

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  54. AD

    its trips like this that give it away for the hoax it is. one overseas flight creates more emmission per passenger than an entire year of driving an SUV.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  55. There you go again with those “Inconvenient Truths”!

    AD - RtR/OS! (5fb16f)

  56. “[Bush] administration officials said that they had seen the stolen e-mails and dismissed the arguments. There is global consensus there are WMD in Iraq.”

    Imagine.

    MayBee (86cc96)

  57. AD

    You know its like this conversation i had with this lawyer. he was trying to scare companies into an expensive compliance program with the FTC’s red flags rule (you don’t have to know what it is to get the story). So i emailed him, said his presentation was crap, and he called me to defend it.

    So i said this to him, “okay, according to you, everyone needs to get ready for this.”

    “Right.”

    “Including law firms like yours.”

    “Yes.”

    “So what has your firm done to prepare?”

    The answer was pretty much nothing.

    “Then why should i credit your advice when you yourself don’t take it.”

    At that point he decided i was personally insulting him (and to be fair, i was), and hung up. Heh.

    I mean how many times do we have to see al gore show up at a global warming event in a fleet of chevy suburbans, and leave the engine running while he talks, before we figure out the man is full of sh–?

    A.W. (b1db52)

  58. Re comments 6, 8 andm in 16: “I’ve updated the post to add the Obama Administration’s response per Kevin Murphy’s comment, above.” Hey, DRJ, where is my hat tip?;)

    Ira (28a423)

  59. Some degree of correlation seemed to fit between CO2 and temperature both in the 1900’s and reportedly during periods of geological history, some measurements in terms of several hundred years, and others millions of years back.

    There are temperature estimates millions of years back?

    Gerald A (a66d02)

  60. A pretty thorough round up on the current state of global warming:

    http://gahrie.blogspot.com/2009/11/some-inconvenient-truths.html#links

    gahrie (9d1bb3)

  61. Gerald A- I could be wrong, but I believe there is data purported to show that as CO2 rises, the earth’s temp rises (Gore’s documantary and elsewhere), when close examination of the timelines show that the warming came first, and I believe this is from estimates from many, many years ago, more of the realm of geology and paleontology than climate- I could be wrong and would happy to be corrected or have someone clarify (The material I have on this is not where I am at the moment.

    Powerline continues to have good updates every few days, like this:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025043.php

    and here is something they reference, which in turn has interesting links:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

    MD in Philly (227f9c)

  62. Be still. Listen closely. Can you hear the sounds of thousands of scientists’ emails and data bases around the world being deleted or sanitized?

    JeffM (1e8564)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1200 secs.